Section 21, 22 and 23 of the Act are basically provisions that require the consent of the Governor in transactions concerning Land Ownership. The implication of this on customary Land tenure system is that no holder of customary or statutory right of occupancy can alienate this right of occupancy without the consent of the Local Government Chairman or State Governor, as the case may be and if the alienation is done without the necessary consent, S. 26 of the Act provides that the whole transaction will be declared null and void and can be a ground for revocation of the right of occupancy or the holder may be penalized.

Alienation simply means to assign by away of conveyance, mortgage, lease, sub – lease or part with possession of the land in whatever way by the holder. It has been observed that the prohibition placed on alienation of right of occupancy is not water – tight in that the holder of a right of occupancy is at liberty, without any legal restriction, to negotiate the alienation of his right of occupancy. Thus, in Onuboys Technical Services Limited V Union Banks of Nig. Ltd.  Wherein the Supreme Court held as follows: “A holder of a right of occupancy may enter into an agreement or contract with a view to alienation his right of occupancy. To enter into such an agreement, or contract, he does not need the consent of the Governor”. Notwithstanding these anxiety and fear expressed concerning the consent provision of the Act, the National Assembly appears reluctant to amend, review or repeal the Land Use Act.

The Lack of exclusive possession is also an impediment in ownership of land in Nigeria. The effect of S. 14 of the Act is that in relation to the land itself, the holder should have exclusive rights against all persons other than the Governor. Therefore, the holder does not have exclusive possession of the land he occupies. The Governor can revoke the right of occupancy of overriding public interest. And the holder has no right to object to the revocation for overriding public interest. It should be noted that when revoking a right of occupancy for an overriding public interest, the Governor must comply with the statutory provisions in that direction otherwise the revocation will be declared null and void even if it is intended for overriding public interest.

Since SS. 6(3) and 28 of the Act empower the Local government and the Governor to revoke any right of occupancy for the overriding public interest, and also the vesting of ownership of land in the state to the Governor of the state, the Land Use Act has created the problem of insecurity of title to holder of right of occupancy.
One of the most pre – requisite for adequate provision of housing is security of title to lands, for it is on land the house will stand. The importants of land to housing are of twofold: it provides the base on which the house is built, and it could also serve as security for raising capital to build the house by way of mortgage.
But since the title given by the Governor is not secured as it sounds, this has surely affected the development of housing sector of the economy. Note that there are some other effects of Land Use Act on acquisition and ownership, but we are obliged to do with the once highlighted above for want of space.
Share on Google Plus


The publications and/or documents on this website are provided for general information purposes only. Your use of any of these sample documents is subjected to your own decision NB: Join our Social Media Network on Google Plus | Facebook | Twitter | Linkedin